There are probably thousands of comic books, with hundreds of heroes and villains. Surely, getting new iterations of Spiderman and Batman for the third time (for Spiderman, the third time in the last two decades, the last one being in 2014) isn't really necessary nor is it pushing the boundaries to new ideas. Why are we getting new iterations? Is it because the general population will only pay to see superheroes they know? But with the increasing superhero overdose, wouldn't studios make more money if there were new superheroes with new villains and new powers being put on the big screen?
I would be careful of the use of the word "remakes" because if you look at Christian Bale's Batman vs. Ben Afleck's Batman, the characters have distinct differences between them, with different stories and elements highlighted. In this case, I feel that the word remakes might not be the best fit. Maybe "new iterations" would be more appropriate for what you are discussing. The topic is very interesting and relevant overall! – SeanGadus8 years ago
Good point, but check the wording in the second sentence. More specifically 'necessary of interesting'. I'm not sure what you were going for, but I feel like you can word that part better. Other than that, you are good to go. – MikeySheff8 years ago
I think Batman especially represents a lot of interesting aspects of the human subconscious, which is possibly why he is so enduringly popular, but I do think that with nearly 100 years of mythos in Batman, the filmmakers could do more to integrate the entirety of the comics. For instance, the only Batgirl we've gotten was in the terrible Clooney movie, which is not at all representative of Barbara Gordon. We haven't seen anything of Jason Todd, a hint of Nightwing at the end of Dark Knight Rises, but there's so much more to Batman than just Batman, and I think that's being really underutilized. – rmwalker8 years ago